Robert Owens
Let the Chips Fall Where They May
By
Sep 10, 2008 - 9:05:22 AM

When I first heard of a Signing Statement, I thought it was something Paris Hilton said while she scribbled her name on someone’s program. Imagine my surprise when I found out this is something our president issues when he signs legislation.  Then imagine my surprise when I learned a Signing Statement wasn’t the president saying something like, “I’d like to thank Senator VIP Treatment for proposing this wonderful bail-out-of-the-predatory-lenders bill.”  Or “Everyone give Rep. Sweetheartdeal a big round of ‘Attaboys!’ for guiding this inspired deregulation of whoever-could-pay- him-the-most bill through Congress.”  

For those of you still living sighing in the blissful dream of America the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, here’s something to ponder.  Signing Statements are pronouncements the president issues when he signing legislation.  They were first issued by President Reagan.  He started doing this to let everyone know his position on the bill and as a guide to any future court rulings.  A few times, he used these statements objecting to particular provisions of a bill that he felt the lack of a line-item veto compelled him to sign.  Every president since has used them in this way.  Then along comes George the Second.

Bush 2.0 is asserting a theory called the Unitary Executive, which he and his Justice Department claims gives the president the power to execute laws as he interprets them, no matter what the actual words may say or what the clear intent of the Congress may have been.  The awesome nature of this naked power grab has passed over the heads of our virulently anti-Bush mainstream media.  These paragons of print prattle on about “How many must die because he lied?” when they were ready to back Clinton to the hilt against the Butcher of Baghdad even after tons of yellow-cake were sent from Iraq to Canada.  They write Pulitzer-winning puff pieces about “Bush abandons minorities to Katrina’s horrors” when it is easy to discover who wasted and stole the billions given to New Orleans and Louisiana to build adequate levees before Katrina.   Yet they ignore a story which could lead to our nation’s third impeachment and should at least lead to Congress asserting its power as a co-equal branch of government.  

Why have all powerful broadcast news anchors, the endless talking heads of cable, and the courageous commentators of talk radio missed this one?  They are majoring on the minors.  They are re-hashing the minutia of “’Tis too – tain’t neither” partisan politics while an imperial presidency on steroids is making a mockery of the checks and balances that have served us so well.  By using the doctrine of the Unitary Executive, President Bush asserts that he can overrule the courts and Congress based upon how he interprets the Constitution.  This theory of the Unity Executive originally referred to the fact that the president has exclusive control over the executive branch of government, something which seemed settled in the outcome of President Andrew Johnson’s trumped-up impeachment trial, where Congress tried to say that presidents couldn’t fire people they hired if they had been confirmed by the Senate.  This concept was thrown out, and rightly so, for the president must be able to run the executive branch if it is to be co-equal with the other two branches.

President Bush has interpreted this theory to say he is superior to the other two branches of government.  Other presidents have refused to enforce specific portions of laws because they said these took away powers granted to the executive by the Constitution.  George II asserts through his Signing Statements that he will enforce laws as he interprets them, which at times is not only different than what the laws clearly say, but the exact opposite of what they say.  For instance, the McCain amendment was passed, which forbids torture.  The signing statement issued in connection with the bill containing this amendment said this would be interpreted as the president wanted it interpreted.  What’s that supposed to mean?  The amendment says “no torture.”  It means what it means.  If the president doesn’t like it, don’t sign the bill; veto it instead.  The Constitution says that Congress “shall make all laws” and that the President shall “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.”  If we interpret the Constitution to say that because he is the Commander-in-Chief, the president can do anything he wants overriding the Congress and the courts, we no longer have a government of, by, and for the people; we instead have an elected autocrat ruling by decree.  

From reading my past postings, many of you may have concluded that I am a conservative, but I’m not.  I’m a radical.  I’m so radical I think we should turn away from the nanny-state socialism of one side and the imperial dreams of the other side and reclaim our heritage as a free people.  I’m so radical I think we should return to Constitutional government and let the chips fall where they may.

© Copyright by Village Publishing LLC